Misyār marriage, often translated as “passing marriage,” derives from the Arabic root sayr (to pass or move through), a term that reflects the non-cohabiting and frequently intermittent nature of such unions. Emerging in Saudi Arabia in the late twentieth century, misyār is generally understood as a legally valid Sunni marriage in which one or both of the spouses, most commonly the wife, voluntarily waive certain rights typically associated with marriage. Unlike temporary marriage, misyār is formally contracted as a permanent union and fulfills the essential requirements of a valid nikãh, or marriage contract. The practice has since spread across Sunni communities in the Gulf and into countries such as Egypt,^[1] where it has become increasingly visible within a broader landscape of non-conventional marital arrangements. These include ʿurfī^[2] (customary or informal) marriage, as well as, within Twelver Shiʿa contexts, mutʿa^[3](temporary) marriage.^[4] While differing in doctrinal basis and legal recognition, these practices collectively signal a shift in how marriage is negotiated in response to changing socio-economic realities.

At the level of formal doctrine, misyār presents relatively little uncertainty. It fulfills the basic nikāh requirements (essential legal pillars of a valid Islamic marriage), including mutual consent, the presence of witnesses, and the provision of a mahr (dowry).^[5] What distinguishes it, however, is the inclusion of contractual stipulations that allow one or both spouses, most often the wife, to waive certain rights traditionally associated with marriage.^[6] These may include nafaqa (financial maintenance), cohabitation and, in cases of polygamy, equal allocation of time. For proponents, this flexibility reflects the adaptability of Islamic law and its capacity to accommodate diverse social circumstances. For critics, however, it raises fundamental questions about whether the reduction of marriage to its minimal legal components undermines its ethical and social purpose.^[7]

We must situate the growing prominence of misyār within the wider political economy of marriage in the Arab world. Over recent decades, structural changes, including rising costs associated with marriage, high rates of youth unemployment, delayed marriage, urbanization, demographic shifts due to war and migrations, and shifting gender expectations, have altered the conditions under which individuals form families.^[8] In Egypt in particular, the financial burden of marriage, including housing, dowries and wedding expenses, has become a significant barrier, especially for younger generations. These pressures have contributed to the proliferation of alternative marital arrangements that seek to reconcile religious permissibility with economic constraint.^[9]

However, framing misyār solely as a pragmatic response to structural hardship risks presenting it as a neutral or universally beneficial adaptation. In practice, the conditions under which misyār marriages are contracted are deeply shaped by inequalities of wealth, nationality, age and gender. These inequalities are particularly pronounced in transnational contexts, where patterns have emerged involving affluent men from Gulf states entering into short-term marital arrangements with economically vulnerable Egyptian women and young girls.^[10] While these unions may satisfy the formal criteria of Islamic law, their socio-economic context complicates claims of willing consent and mutual benefit.

It is within this tension between legal form and lived reality that misyār becomes particularly significant. Much of the existing debate surrounding misyār has focused on its permissibility within Islamic jurisprudence, often framed in binary terms as either ḥalāl (lawful) or ḥarām (unlawful). Yet such a framework risks obscuring more complex questions about the relationship between legal validity and ethical legitimacy. Islamic legal thought has long contended with this distinction, particularly through the concept of the maqāṣid al-sharīʿa (the higher objectives of Islamic law), which emphasizes justice, dignity, social welfare and the protection of vulnerable parties.^[11] When viewed through this lens, the question is not simply whether misyār meets the formal requirements of a valid contract but whether it fulfills the broader purposes that marriage is intended to serve.

This paper argues that misyār should be understood not merely as a flexible legal arrangement but as a phenomenon that exposes the limits of a purely formalist approach to Islamic law. By focusing on Egypt as a case study, it demonstrates how legal permissibility can intersect with structural inequality to produce outcomes that challenge both the ethical foundations of marriage and broader notions of social justice. The discussion begins by outlining the internal logic of Sunni permissibility and its jurisprudential tensions. It then examines the divergence between Sunni and Twelver Shiʿa perspectives through a sustained comparison with mutʿa.Furthermore, it analyzes the practice of misyār in Egypt, focusing on its relationship to economic inequality, transnational marriage patterns and informal marital economies. Finally, it considers the implications of these findings for broader debates within Islamic law, particularly regarding the relationship between legal form, ethical purpose and lived reality.